Mumbai Court June 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ma Care and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)(88)LC80Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are applications for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3.4489 crores demanded from M/s. TTK Pharma Ltd. [TTK for short] (application E/2930/98) and penalty of Rs. 2 crores on it under Rule 173Q and a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs to redeem land, building and machinery confiscated, and penalties under Rule 209A of Rs. 1 crore on M/s. Ma Care (application E/2928/98), Rs. 5 lakhs on M.V. Kumar (application E/2931/98), managing director of TTK, Rs. 5 lakhs on Jhunjhunwala (application E/, partner of Ma Care, and Rs. 2 lakhs each on Hariharasubramaniam (application E/2932/98) and M. Rangachari (application E/2933/98), employees of TTK.2. The common advocate for all the applicants says that the duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the Commissioner's finding that the product known as Woodwards Gripe Water which is stated to be manufactured by Ma Care was in fact manufactured by TTK and therefore assessable value should be. based on price at which TTK sold the goods to its dealers. He ...
Shri Sakharam Bala Mali Gaikwad Vs. Shri Janardhan Balaji Phadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR283; 2000(1)BomCR78; 2000(1)MhLj696
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J,1. Heard advocates for the petitioner and respondent.2. The parties have been litigating about their rights in respect of the suit land since 1951, During last 40 years there have been number of orders and remands to the lower Authorities for at least an half dozen of times, and as such the matter has to be conclusively and finally decided by this Court.3. Though the litigation is going on for last 40 years, the question involved is very short. The respondent made an application under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The certificate was granted to the respondent on 19-10-1961. Admittedly, the certificate included land over which the petitioner is claiming right. The petitioner challenged the order of granting certificate, but however, he was unsuccessful, after which an inquiry under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act was started for determining the price of the land to be paid by the tenants. But the proceedings were dropped by the...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Dr. Beck and Co. (ind.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR401; (2000)1BOMLR162; [1999]239ITR561(Bom); 1999(3)MhLj587
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of revenue as well as at the instance of assesses :At the instance of revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the interpretation of section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rules 87 and 88 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of the entire initial contribution to the superannuation fund as a liability in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79?'At the instances of assessee :'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts representing commission paid to Dr. Beck & Co. A.G. West Germany were not eligible for weighted deductio...
Tata Consulting Engineers Vs. A.C. Doshi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR93; 1999(4)BomCR470; (1999)3BOMLR421; (2000)ILLJ318Bom; 1999(3)MhLj334
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated 24th August, 1995, made in Complaint U.L.P. No. 76 of 1986, a proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a company which is engaged in the business of providing engineering services. Prior to 1984, there was only one union functioning in the company i.e., Tata Consulting Employees' Union. It seems that the said union was functioning from 1972 and was recognised as the only bargainable union of the employees in the workmen category. The respondent No. 2 union came on the scene in 1984. The respondent No. 2 represents mainly draughtsmen and clerks working in the company. On 27th January, 1986 respondent No. 2 filed Complaint U.L.P. No. 76 of 1986, inter alia, alleging that the company was engaged in unfair...
Shaikh Shafaque Anjum M.H. and Another Vs. University of Mumbai and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR335; 1999(4)BomCR468; 1999(3)MhLj1
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing.2. The two petitioners, Shafaque Anjum and Mohammed Azam appeared for the 2nd M.B.B.S. final examination during October, 1998. Their centre was the University Department of Chemical Technology U.D.C.T. at Matunga. Shafaque Anjum was allotted Seat No. 209 while Mohammed Azam was allotted seat No. 208. From the sitting arrangement which is shown in Exhibit A to the petition, it is seen that there was another seat No. 200 which was between Shafaque Anjum's seat No. 209 and Mohammed Azam's seat No. 208. On 13th January, 1999 the University issued notices to the petitioners under the University Ordinance No. 220. It was alleged that the petitioners had 'mutually copied answers to question Nos. 5 and 6' while answering the Pathology paper as the answers given by both the petitioners were identical. The petitioners submitted their replies to the allegation stating that similarity in the answers ...
Shri Sameer Mohd. Iliyas Dhangire Vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR894; (1999)3BOMLR248; 2000CriLJ134; 1999(3)MhLj429
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu has impugned the detention order dated 30th June, 1998 passed by the 1st respondent, Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981 (Amendment-1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 30th June, 1998 was served on the petitioner detenu on 4-7-1998. Since the solitary ground pressed by Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to challenge the impugned detention order is a purely legal one, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the grounds of detention.3. The legal ground on which, in the contention of Mr. U.N. Tripathi, the continued detention of the petitione...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharda Sugar Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Bom)151; [1999]239ITR393(Bom)
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the amounts of Rs. 6,36,683 and Rs. 18,29,353 are not assessable as its income for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively ?'2. The assessee is a sugar factory engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. The Government of India, by notification dated November 20, 1973, issued under the Sugar (Price) Determination Order, 1973, fixed the price of levy sugar of D-29 grade at Rs. 153.39 per quintal inclusive of excise duty. By another notification dated December 14, 1973, the Government of India revised the price and fixed the same at Rs. 155.30 per quintal. Aggrieved by these notifications, the assessee filed a writ petition in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesar Sugar Works Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR398(Bom); [1999]107TAXMAN226(Bom)
DR. B. P. S. J.-By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,56,366 credited by the assessee to the 'enhanced levy sugar price account' in the books of account for the previous relevant year of the assessment year 1979-80, was not income which had accrued in that year and was not therefore chargeable to income-tax for the assessment year 1979-80 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest of Rs. 69,529 and Rs. 1,30,097 on the excess amount received on delivery of levy sugar in pursuance of the interim order of the High Court dated May 17, 1975, constituted deductible liability in the computation of profits and gains of the business ...
Narmada Chematur Petrochem. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT833Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The assessees declared "Palladium" as an input in their declaration filed under Rule 57G. Chapter subheading was shown as 7101.39. The actual inputs received were described as "5% palladium-on-carbon-catalyst" and the classification shown was under sub-heading 3815.00. The lower authority denied the credit and also imposed the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the orders, the present appeal and the stay application have been filed.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the ld. Advocate submits that the assessee have already reversed the Modvat credit. He cites the Tribunal judgment to the effect that different descriptions of inputs or different chapter numbers being shown in the invoices and the declarations are not valid grounds for denial of Modvat credit. The case law would be gone into at the time of disposal of the appeal. At this stage, I find that the assessees have prima facie shown that they had not taken Modvat credit in a mala fide manner. I, therefore, waive the...
Vishnu Krishna Kshirsagar Vs. Shrikant Rajaram Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)ALLMR259; 2000(1)BomCR188
ORDERD.G. DESHPANDE, J.1. Heard Mr. B.R. Patil for the petitioner and Mr. Damle for the respondent. The petitioner is the tenant of Survey No. 425/B-2 situated at village Lonand, Taluka Khandala District Satara. He was the tenant since before 1-4-1957 and it is his case that he became a deemed purchaser under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 on or from 1-4-1957. He, therefore, applied to the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Phaltan-Khandala and an order under section 32-G of the B.T. & A.L. Act came to be passed after due notice to the landlord on 30-12-1982. It appears from the record that the landlord thereafter filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer raising objection on the ground that the landlord was minor and attained majority on 1-2-1973 and as such the petitioner tenant should have given notice to the landlord to purchase the land under section 32-F(1)(a), but since the tenant has failed to give any such notice, the order of the Additio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »